[Search-l] "directory" vs. "search engine"

Thu Jun 7 07:28:27 UTC 2007

Working for free and working as an employee are not the only two revenue 
models for content creators.

There are two sides to search as a business - quality of search results
which brings visitors and advertising which brings revenue.  I am
curious why no one is considering the option of ad revenue sharing with
the content creators/editors.  Why are the current models assuming that
ad revenue goes to the search engine owners 100%? If the content=search
quality is good enough to bring in the revenue, and the editors get a
proportional share of the revenue from their pages wouldn't this get us
out of the "free" vs. "employed with benefits" dichotomy?

Unless we create new economic models for all participants, aren't we 
merely replacing one big monolith with a few "small" monoliths,
but monoliths nevertheless from a revenue point of view?

Nitin Borwankar

Jason Calacanis wrote:

>On 6/3/07, Seth Finkelstein <sethf at sethf.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>        Ah, but I think the key difference in Mahalo vs DMOZ is
>>in a halfway reasonable monetization strategy (cream-skim the
>>top search terms). This is not *comprehensive* coverage of the Web,
>>which I think is tripping people up when it comes to discussing
>>directory vs. general search engine. Rather, it's *focus*, on the
>>specific segment likely to be most profitable. Yes, it's really
>>more of a "directory", not a "search engine". But the other side of
>>that is it's a directory which is optimized to work both "in" and "out"
>>with a search engine, and an eye towards profitability. Which is something
>>of a twist on the usual directory concept (which usually starts from a
>>taxonomy and concerns itself with breadth).
>>    
>>
>
>That is a very astute point Seth. We are doing the top 10,000 english
>search terms, and we are using a search format/metaphor/design. We do
>have categories, and you can navigate in a DMOZ-like way, so I like to
>call Mahalo.com a "search service."
>
>  
>
>>>it. Working for free as a hobby is fine (ie wikipedia), but why
>>>anyone would work for free to make venture capitalists and ceos
>>>right is beyond me.
>>>      
>>>
>>        For the joy and happiness, the *community*, of course. I think
>>part of what Y. Benkler is analyzing in his infamous book, though not put
>>so bluntly, is this: If you have 100K to hire workers, you can put 10K
>>each towards 10 people (and after benefits and overhead, pay them around
>>5K each total), Or, put 100K towards a really good marketing flack
>>who will go around trying to convince 10 people in the entire world to
>>WORK FOR FREE, because gosh golly they're contributing to A New Era,
>>and showing those elitist priests up there that citizen-amateurs can
>>do a job without pay that's every bit as good as paid professionals.
>>    
>>
>
>I've debated Benkler on this point, and at Wikimania in Boston this
>summer one of the speakers (before or after Benkler) made a point of
>demonstrating that folks involved in open source software projects
>participated because they thought their participation would get them
>some sort of financial return down the road (or something to that
>effect--anyone remember?).
>
>Anyway, at the end of the day everyone needs to eat, and when your
>hobby moves from being part time to full-time the rubber meets the
>road. In fact, look and Jimmy and Angela who did amazing free work on
>the Wikipedia for years and years and are now working on a for-profit
>company--Wikia--backed by the most aggressive form of capital in the
>world: venture capital.
>
>If the top folks from Wikipedia have left to "swing for the fences" at
>a venture backed company that tells you something about Benkler's
>theories now doesn't it?
>
>  
>
>>        But I get in trouble when I talk about that. At least in the
>>wrong place. Anyway, I may be projecting, but I think the membership
>>of this list skews more towards those on the code-developer end, and
>>interested parties keeping an eye on the project, rather than those
>>who will be doing grunt work of writing specific results.
>>    
>>
>
>Exactly. That's the part I hate. Developers can get paid,
>administrators can get paid, but editors don't!? What if Theresa in
>your example got paid for doing good? Would that be such a bad thing?
>
>That's what we're trying to do at Mahalo: let everyone "get a taste"
>not just the management teams of venture-backed companies.
>
>[ Note: I'm not saying Wikipedia should move to a paid model, but I
>think if Wikipedia allowed OPT-IN advertising they could hire 10-25
>editors f/t to work from home and administer the system. It would be a
>start. ]
>
>best regards and Mahalo ;-) for the amazing feedback Seth... you're
>like having a free management consultant on 24-hour duty!!!
>
>Jason
>www.mahalo.com
>_______________________________________________
>Search-l mailing list
>Search-l at wikia.com
>http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/search-l
>Change options or unsubscribe: http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/options/search-l
>  
>

-- 

Nitin Borwankar

http://walruscarpenter.wordpress.com	Of shoes  and ships  and sealing 
wax  of cabbages and kings
http://greener.com    Find, Learn, Act .... Greener, the search engine 
for the planet
http://tagschema.com  Implementation of tag database applications

nitin at borwankar.com
510-872-7066